How long is it going to be until we see a significant number of scientists being vocally anti-feminist? Probably not that long because feminists have declared war on science because science tells us facts that contradict the feminist narrative. The feminist war on science is synonymous with a war on scientists so feminists are out to destroy the lives of scientists like Tim Hunt and Matt Taylor. With that kind war on them, scientists will increasingly have no reason not to be anti-feminist. Any attempt by scientists to placate feminists will fail, and enough scientists will realize that sooner or later

I have to disagree with you on that one, scientists are pariahs now. The only reason Scientists are even eligible targets by the feminists now is because Western civilization has deemed them not worthy.
1) We have lost a net of 19000 jobs over the last decade when people say there is a lack of qualified personnel for the jobs we have, so much so we need more foreign workers.
2) for the manpower Scientist and engineers put in, they are not paid enough $120,000 for an 80 hour work week is equivalent to 60,000 dollars a year. For arguably more beneficial work.
3) The University where research used to thrive is prioritizing things that not only don’t bring in money, but things which cost the university money.
4) Companies have shredded their R&D budget even before the recession simply because they find a bigger return with marketing.(because John Q Public is stupid)
5) Our patent system is better established to stifle innovation rather than foster competition for it. (There can be a whole new post on how big businesses keep small nimble companies away from their bottom line)

The fact of the matter is Scientists have always been a threat to the status quo, so an unholy union of corporatism, feminism(and yes racism or LGBT doesn’t even get a seat at the table cause feminism is the borg, they have already co-opted the causes. Gynocentrism is greedy ladies and gentlemen, they just have no need to hide it now), and a government complicit in this is occurring to push them down. Make no mistake, there is no room for free thinkers in this society right now. The thing is it’s not like there are people actively doing this, it’s just the natural results of interests coinciding. (I know you hate your conspiracies PMAFT, but what if it’s just human nature to gang up on a fallen opponent/ try any means to keep power for yourself) The pie of power has already been split and they don’t want anybody else at the table.

One of the things that I’ve come to conclude is that with women not being about logic and being about feelings instead they’ve come to conclude that if they can’t control something then it has to be destroyed. Science is about facts and logic. Women cannot stomach facts and logic so they are biologically excluded from the STEM fields.

To destroy STEM it is made uncool in school. The kids who love it are nerds and if they refuse to listen to the mocking they become pariahs. Then if those same kids get into those fields they are turfed out if any anti-feminism manifests itself.

They won’t. For every one scientist willing to challenge political correctness, there are 1,000 who either keep their mouths shut or openly advocate political correctness & feminism. Those that aren’t a collaborator are complicit, because they are all dependent on the government/university/corporate complex for salary and grants.

If you think that scientists are politically invulnerable then look no further than climategate.

6 years ago leading climate scientists were exposed (by Russian hackers) trying to ‘trick’ tree ring proxy data to make it fit their hockey stick graph (after 1960 the tree ring data deviates from the stick hence the need for Mike’s ‘nature trick’ to hide the decline).

It is noteworthy that of all the data these guys used to make the hockey stick, tree ring proxy data is the only kind of data that they cannot lie about.

That is, a scientific peer can go into the woods, saw down some trees, and replicate the result all by themselves.

By contrast ‘real temp’ data (what is used to make the stick swing up) CAN be lied about. Because a peer cannot get into a time machine, go back to such and such a spot on such and such a day, stick out a thermometer and compare the result with what another scientist has written in a science journal.

In spite of all this the Cathedral was successful in cleaning up this mess and we now have a ‘consensus’ that climate change (used to be called global warming) is real.

Phil Jones talks about “Mike’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” as two separate techniques. However, people often abbreviate the email, distilling it down to “Mike’s trick to hide the decline”. Professor Richard Muller from Berkeley commits this error in a public lecture:

[…] in space exploration. That means feminists will attack it just like we saw with Matt Taylor (and Tim Hunt). Since feminists don’t have the excuse of a shirt this time, they have to lie like they […]

[…] Dr. Matt Taylor, a man who led a team to successfully land a probe on a comet, over a shirt. Feminists forced Tim Hunt, a Nobel prize winning biochemist, out of his job because of a bit of humo… Feminists are lying about NASA and trying to get it shut down. This is only a tiny fraction of […]

Well, if we lose the sicientific way of thinking because we, as society, are favoring dogmatic thinkings, we will become something like muslim countries, where progress in all area has dissapeared. Thank you, feminists.

That’s only meaningful on a larger scale, so that’s why Russia and China won’t do it. (Singapore might.) They don’t want to import a significant number of men who will end up being troublemakers for the Russian and Chinese governments. Plus, at least in Russia, they’re tradcons so Russia will not be of any help.

Isn’t that more standard gynocentrism than feminism?
The deference that chivalry and other traditional mores gave to women was based on the fact you needed women more than men for reproduction, but if they want to wait till they have difficulties having kids I no longer feel the need to pay them for that premium.

I am against giving women so much deference if they refuse to use more than 20% of their reproductive capacity.

Sometimes a carrot is needed more than a stick and vice versa. Unfortunately all our solutions are designed to give a carrot to women and a stick to men. That is pretty much why the system is failing.

Oh there’s heaven and earth difference between the approaches of standard gynocentrism (traditionalism) and feminism. All going to the same goal mind you, but taking different approaches. MGTOW throws out both standard road-maps to the end goal. What I think men have not understood for the last 40 years was that feminism was never a thing that really had men in the picture. It was always a war to be validated for their life choices by other women.

I think most women subconsciously know they have it better and when they were threatened with being in a lesser socioeconomic condition than their parents for the first time in the last century (no men of their social class would marry them because they had options), they passed the buck. But we all know what happens when this occurs… someone must pay and in this case it was lower and middle class males.

If at any time men had said hey the things you complain about were the sacrifices you made so you:
1)would be attractive to the opposite sex. (demure, polite, can cook and mend clothes, child rearing)
2) didn’t have to do the hard jobs available to you (work: mines, factories, farms; own property: because part of ownership is defending said property, vote: because once again it implies having to defend that right)

Correlation does not imply causation. No fault divorce caused it true, but we can’t say feminism was the only cause that instituted it back 40 years ago starting with California. In fact we can say the economic conditions, (women being entirely unnecessary in the home and idle, leading to an increase in the workforce) are what led to the burnt remains and rubble the future landscape would have.

Keep in mind much of the reason why women were always defaulted to having custody and the reason alimony exists came out way before the zeitgeist of 2nd wave feminism. That is the gynocentrism that existed before; it just made the changes later hurt alot more.

I’m not saying feminism is not a horribly destructive ideology, I’m just saying you can’t blame one concept for the inherent solipism of the female mind. The pieces were in place before a “movement” came in and put a foot on the proverbial neck of the working man.

Until the last two decades feminism has done nothing but complain and whine. It’s our trad cons that have given us these abysmal laws that threaten a mans right to his own sovereignity. Granted I hate yes means yes,VAWA, IMBRA as illogical legal frankensteins, but before then can you find much legislation that was done by feminist, rather than the traditional corner?

We allowed feminism to progress and go from a petulant screaming child to a petulant screaming child with a red button.But there is plenty of blame to go around for that. Most of it is in our nature to overprotect women. Feminism is just the demand for it rather than the coaxing of it.

Not saying the Duluth model is not a travesty, and yes it was based on a study in 1981, but it wasn’t really instituted until the last 20 years (thank you nineties). Alot of the most egregious initiatives occured then, simply because all the 70s freshly minted fems finally went out into the world. If we are nitpicking this model for domestic abuse then we can nitpick yes means yes was created slightly more than 20 years ago when they tried to institute this on colleges circa 1993 and SNL even made a skit about it and mocked it.

The winds have changed for feminist in the past few years. So yes they have become a power, but it’s the inherent biases we give to protect women( even from themselves) which leads to such horrible laws.

I just think Dawkins is highly logical and if anything doesn’t make sense, he will call to question said issue. Atheism, feminism whenever it is more dogmatic belief than evidence, it probably disturbs him like dirt does an OCD cleaner.

I have talked plenty about misandry from tradcons and others who are not self described feminists. That is not news. However, there are abuses of men that feminists proper are responsible for that are more than 20 years old such as the Duluth model.